From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Branham

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jul 1, 2024
2:23-cr-00100-LK (W.D. Wash. Jul. 1, 2024)

Opinion

2:23-cr-00100-LK

07-01-2024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY JOSEPH BRANHAM, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRAVEL

LAUREN KING. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Branham's Motion to Permit Travel by Defendant. Dkt. No. 39. Mr. Branham seeks permission to travel from this District to the District of Oregon from July 4 to July 7, 2024 “to attend a track meet being held at Mount Hood, Oregon, in which his daughter is participating.” Id. at 1. Mr. Branham provides no other details about the track meet or the nature of his daughter's participation.

As with his prior motion, Mr. Branham requests “immediate consideration” of his motion to travel. Id.; Dkt. No. 32 at 1. Under the Local Criminal Rules, Mr. Branham's motion should have been noted for consideration on July 9, 2024, and the Government's response would have been due on July 4, 2024. CrR 12(b)(1)-(2), (6). He seeks to travel on July 4, 2024, before the Government's response is due. Rule 12(b)(6) requires advance authorization from the Court for a different briefing schedule, but Mr. Branham did not seek such authorization, nor does he explain why he could not have filed his motion earlier. In this instance, the Court considers the motion before receiving the Government's response, but cautions that it will not do so in the future absent exigent circumstances.

Pursuant to his appearance bond, Mr. Branham “must not travel outside the Continental United States or as directed by Pretrial Services.” Dkt. No. 18 at 1. He is also required to participate in the Court's location monitoring program with Active Global Positioning Satellite technology and comply with a curfew as directed by the location monitoring specialist. Id. The Pretrial Services Officers assigned to Mr. Branham are unwilling to endorse Mr. Branham's request “[d]ue to a recent failed urinalysis test by Mr. Branham[.]” Dkt. No. 39 at 2.

In light of that recent failed urinalysis and the balance of the record, the Court DENIES the motion to travel. Dkt. No. 39.


Summaries of

United States v. Branham

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jul 1, 2024
2:23-cr-00100-LK (W.D. Wash. Jul. 1, 2024)
Case details for

United States v. Branham

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY JOSEPH BRANHAM, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Jul 1, 2024

Citations

2:23-cr-00100-LK (W.D. Wash. Jul. 1, 2024)